Humanities desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 21[edit]

Why is right collar over left?[edit]

Why is this chap's coat's right collar over left ( he is not female )? Jon Ascton (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof the image was not flipped from left to right? μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, got it from Wiki itself. You can trace the original position. That's what came to my mind too but at page source the author/uploader has given no hint (whether flipped or not) as far as I could see. Jon Ascton (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the gentleman hasn't buttoned his coat, but is merely holding it closed while the photo is taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page written by a Rabbi, "Many people may not have noticed that men's clothes typically close left over right. This served to ease access to a concealed weapon with the right hand. Clothing made especially for religious Jewish men buttons right over left, perhaps to emphasize that the Jew is not interested in drawing a weapon and certainly not in advertising the fact.". Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Orthodox Jews do not adhere to the traditional principal of men and women's buttoning. Both sexes button their shirts right over left. Dr. Yitzchok Block explains that "Our garments are traditionally buttoned right over left because we bear no weapons.... The Kabbalah says that the right side of a person should always take precedence over the left, for the right side of man signifies kindness while the left signifies sternness, justice and retribution." This unique difference explains the importance of what appears to be a very small difference."

I got that at a site that is on our "Spam blacklist" (ehow.com).

Our own article Hasidic Judaism mentions this. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions it, but without mentioning that reason: it just says "for kabbalistic reasons". Our article Suit (clothing) gives a similar, but different reason (marked as unreferenced). When I've looked at this question before, I've only ever come across the story that men and women were dressed in different ways (one by themselves and the other by servants. I can't remember which way round it's supposed to be). All these explanations have the ring of stories invented to explain an arbitrary happenstance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not implying this guy is Jewish, a Rabbi, or an Hasid. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two outta three ain't bad. See Yisrael Meir Lau. --Jayron32 05:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Eastern European Jewish dress was always worn (even before buttons came in use) right-over-left. Left-over-right suits were only worn late in Eastern European Jewish history due to Western influence and were considered "modern" (in a negative sense) by traditionalists. Most Orthodox Jewish men now wear Western-style suits, but rabbinic dress (as pictured) is usually more traditional (as can also be sen from the velvet collar).
Hasidic leaders (in particular Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Rimanov, who published a dress code) of the time considered the introduction of European fashions spiritually detrimental, and invoked the principal of "Minhag Yisrael Torah" as forbidding any change of style of dress. They also tried to explain the significance of the tradidtional style according to Kabbalah - the right side, representing good, must subjugate the left side, representing evil (compare with the watered-down version above). Hasidic suits/kaftans are exclusively buttoned right-over-left, regardless of the class of the wearer. (The rabbinic distinction is left to the type of fabric and style of pockets.) Hasidic men may wear right-over-left shirts as well. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative/libertarian awards[edit]

Can anyone please provide a list of conservative/libertarian awards. --Toiutbn (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of awards? Those given to public figures, like the Cato Institute Friedman Prize[1]? Those for students? Bursaries and scholarships? Essay competitions[2]? Those awarded to media with a conservative leaning, like the various awards for "family-friendly" media? Those awarded by right-wing newspapers and magazines to media, politicians, etc, of whom they approve? Qualifications from Brigham Young University? Boy Scout badges? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can give one example: the "Sons and Daughters of Liberty Award", which is presented by the conservative group Freedom Works to selected supporters. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Keynes and Hayek both be right?[edit]

So I've been studying economics at university for a couple of years, and more recently watching the Keynes/Hayek rap battles (which are excellent, and very accurate in the main), and I have a question. I get that some aspects of the Austrian school of economics and the Keynesian are technical disagreements, but the main thrust seems to be that Keynesianism wants to spend out the bust and Hayek and Co. want to restrict the boom. Are these actually mutually exclusive? Why can't the answer be that we listen to Hayek when times are good and Keynes when times are bad? Prokhorovka (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keynes also supposedly advocated reducing spending when times are good [3], but governments never quite seem to get round to that part. Hayek's big idea was that central planning is an obstacle to information flow: our centrally-managing leaders are unable to micro-manage us in an efficient way, because they just can't understand what's needed on a small scale, or administer it, unlike individuals. Public spending creates illusionary institutions which create lots of employment (the boom), and then collapse again due to not connecting to whatever it is that people really want. Hence, spending out of the bust causes the boom which needs to be restricted. Card Zero (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that private spending and unregulated markets can also produce credit-driven booms (e.g., the real estate bubble), which lead to debt-driven busts in which only the government can generate effective demand. The fallacy involved in so much of economic thinking, including that of Hayek, is that prices are the only efficient way or the most efficient way of transmitting information. Prices fail to transmit the crucial information, for example, that a country's economic potential is drastically underutilitized because a large part of its work force is unemployed or underemployed. Marco polo (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that public policy ought not to avoid causing booms-and-busts because the private sector can also cause them? (As we all know, public policy has had no influence on the money supply, or on the real estate market.) — It's plausible that the price of labor will fail to communicate the existence of unemployment if it is legislatively forbidden to decline. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think if you borrow money to stimulate the economy during a bust, then you'd have to raise taxes during the boom, in order to pay it down, or you would inevitably face bankruptcy. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that politically, it is easy to spend money, but it is hard to raise taxes. Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It might help if it was done as a package deal, as in "we will borrow X dollars and then, once the growth rate exceeds Y%, will raise the nominal tax rate to Z until such time as X is repaid". StuRat (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being in first year English and hearing all these different theories as to the 'purpose' or value of art. Near the end of the course it dawned on me that although these theories were all proposed as counters to other ideas, well, that was all just so much vanity, and all of them had something to offer. So yes, disregard the squabbles of competing thinkers and just take away whatever ideas suit your fancy. Vranak (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is all about disequilibrium. Keynes believed investment was more controlled by the animal spriits (or the emotions of investors) than it was by market influsnces. All the cheap labour in a recession caused by high unemployment would not be more convincing than people's sentiments about the economy. Modern ideas like sticky prices and menu costs imply that economies might take a long time to return to full employment and Keynes believed they might never do so. Hayek (and the Austrian school generally) on the other hand had immense faith in free markets. They believed that people acting rationally would very quickly fix any general disequilibrium. They believe that the business cycle is caused by governments messing with individuals. Most mainstream economists consider the Austrian perspective to be wrong or erroneous for a number of reasons (see Austrian Economics). Even Milton Friedman, probably the most successful "anti-keynsian" economist viewed the Austrian explaination of business cylces as incorrect.Jabberwalkee (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to answer the OP's question, they both can't be right, because they are both wrong. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum wage and the gold standard[edit]

Could a minimum wage be made to work with a currency backed by gold (or any other precious substance)? What would happen to the inflation that would have occurred using fiat money? 78.105.228.237 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can have inflation with a gold-backed currency. It would just be a varying of the relative values of gold and whatever it is you are buying. What you don't have is inflation caused by an increase in the money supply (unless someone discovers new gold deposits), but that isn't the only cause of inflation. If a minimum wage does cause inflation (I've not heard that before - the usual claim is that it causes unemployment) then I think it would be due to an increase in the velocity of money, rather than the money supply. (See equation of exchange for details of how all these concepts interact.) --Tango (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a minimum wage would cause some inflation as well, because not all the jobs affected can be sent abroad or scrapped completely. Offices will always need cleaning, for example, even if the work done isn't considered (in theory) to be worth the new rate of pay. Wouldn't that count as an increase in the money supply, because it would be a pay rise without any change in efficiency? 78.105.228.237 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused as to why this would help in any case, but I'm no economist. If your minimum wage is pegged at a relatively stable value (assume for the moment that gold is, even though it's had a huge run up lately and is probably bubbling), but the rest of the world's products and currency are not, how does that help you any? Doesn't that just make the poor poorer, unless they are buying gold? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why you couldn't have a minimum wage and a gold standard. The U.S had a minimum wage when it was on a de facto gold standard during the Bretton Woods system era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And could the gold run up be explained by a decrease in confidence of fiat currencies? Googlemeister (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that the Spanish Empire experienced severe inflation during the 1500s because of the massive influx of gold from South America -- it essentially destroyed the Spanish economy. Looie496 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish problem was that the precious metals were landed in Spain, and there was generally more of them circulating in Spain than in other parts of Europe at any given moment -- which meant that prices were higher in Spain than in the rest of Europe, which made Spanish exports uncompetitive, and so did nothing to encourage the increase of productive economic activities in Spain...

During much of the 19th century, there was an overall long-term deflationary trend in most Western economies, which was periodically counteracted by new gold discoveries. That's what happens when the money supply has no real connection with the size of the economy... AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR caveat: I’m an economist and have just spent a lot of time on Hong Kong’s new minimum wage law. We don’t have a gold standard here, just a peg to the US dollar. The minimum wage / price change issue is less about inflation – legal minimums are easily raised – but deflation. Unless a government has a very powerful position, either through votes or the lack of a need for voter support, it is very likely to be next to impossible to reduce a statutory minimum wage rate. Hence, in a deflationary environment, the adjustment would be strictly through unemployment. IMHO, this is the least optimal course of action. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard of the poet B. Tresz?[edit]

Hi, I've recently acquired a beautiful 3 stanza poem from an old book (which I can't remember the title to), sort of fell out actually, quite the eerie move-like moment! I googled both the poems title, the poet, and lines from the poem but get absolutely no results! So I was wondering if anyone has atleast heard of this poem/ poet? It's called "Aimo the Finn" and I'm pretty sure the copy I've got is handwritten (or perhaps made with a really good quality laser printer hehe) Here are the first few lines;

The cold blue north is in your eyes
And in your skin, in the thin
Ghost of a beard that blurs
The strong line of your chin.
That worn dark coat but half conceals
The gauntness of your shoulder frame -
Ill at ease on you it hangs
And short in the sleeve reveals,
Unkindly, your long thin large-boned hands
Whose insufficient flesh leaves
The more exposed to scorn
Their untanned nakedness.

June, 1968. B. Tresz.

Strange isn't it? Thanks for any light you're able to shed!202.61.204.151 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched a newspaper database that claim to contain over a billion scanned pages - nothing found. You might want to rethink your AFC submission since we can't have a perma-stub on a topic where only one line is ever verifiable and where notability cannot be shown through sources. What you wrote is partly original research also. You don't know if this is "his or her most famous work." All you know is that it was published in the book you found it in. By the way, I have reformatted the poem to appear as I think you intended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relative prevalence of child sexual offenders in general populace versus in the Catholic clergy? (Western societies only)[edit]

The article on child sexual abuse mentions victim percentages in the general populace but not offender ratios (the % of people who are abusers). I was wondering if the offenders within the Catholic clergy represent an abnormally high percentage of the whole, or if they are roughly analogous to the distribution observed in wider society? The Masked Booby (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing here... but one reason why the article may be silent as to statistics on offenders is a lack of reliable sources. We can't give offender ratios if there are no sources to support the statistics. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "Abuse in Social Context: Catholic Clergy and Other Professionals", Catholic League (2004). I did some fact checking on this report some time back and the numbers seem sound. Some pertinent points:

About 85 percent of the offenders [of child sexual abuse] are family members, babysitters, neighbors, family friends or relatives. About one in six child molesters are other children.
Most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.

Whoa! Are you saying "most of the alleged abusers in protestant churches are not clergy or staff, but volunteers"? If true, this would seem to strengthen the argument regarding catholic clergy, not weaken it. In those catholic churches subject to allegations, who are the main abusers? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About 6,000 coaches in the U.S. who have been tried and found guilty of sexual offense against children.
Between 3 and 12 percent of psychologists have had sexual contact with their clients.
15 percent of all students have experienced some kind of sexual misconduct by a teacher between kindergarten and 12th grade.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site's been rearranged: try htm Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Catholic Clergy and Other Professionals, Catholic League (2004). I really would recommend everyone read it. It mostly made me think "Jeez, America. When stuff starting coming out in the 80s and 90s about children's homes and schools and vicars and youth groups, we completely overhauled how everything to do with children worked. People complained that it went too far, but frankly it seems to mostly work. How can you possibly still be moving abusive teachers from school to school? I've been CRB checked three times in the last couple of years, and that's only the start of basic child safety. Why on Earth are you worrying about priests?" 86.163.214.39 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't quite use those as an authoritative source. It's not impartial and is quite blatantly pointing fingers mainly at Protestant churches while attempting to downplay the wrongdoings of their own priests by claiming them to be *gasp* homosexuals. *rolls eyes* As usual, blaming the gays, because gays are supposedly unquestionably innately evil. *rolls eyes harder* And here I am, still waiting for the day I get those supernatural evil gay powers supposedly granted to me by Satan and possibly rain hellfire and brimstone on everyone.

Just because a male pedophile touches a male child, it does not make him a homosexual. Pedophilia has nothing to do with the gender, and everything to do with age. The Catholic church, being a patriarchal religion, has strictly separate gender systems. In absence of contact with the other gender, which would a pedophile then be most exposed to? Give a man two boxes of beer - Brand A and Brand B. Lock the box of Brand B so that he can only drink Brand A. Would it then be accurate to conclude that the man only likes Brand A?

The original reference of that article actually points that out explicitly. But the context by which they were mentioned in the Catholic League's study is very different, making it sound like homosexuality itself caused priests to commit pedophilia. On a side-note, it's interesting how society accepts a legally adult male's relationship with a female teenager, not only accept but actually make it an ideal (the 'schoolgirl' fetish for example). Yet if an 18 year old guy has sexual relations with a 16 year old guy, he's immediately a pedophile.

That lie has been going on since Anita Bryant and her sanctimonious hypocritical BS, and probably caused the deaths of a lot of people. But it obviously served her well, given the virulent unreasoning homophobia of most evangelical Christianity today. In order for them to be righteous, someone else has to be pure evil. And it's best to pick the ones least likely to protest the label. All religions have massive issues, but for pete's sake, when will they stop dragging gays again and again into their own brand of dementia and have them burn for the sins they themselves are committing.

Nonetheless, the issue here is not that there are pedophiles in the Catholic church (there will be pedophiles, whatever the sector of society, sadly), it's that the church itself protected these individuals. Protesting the accusations against them are unfair falls a bit flat when they have also been unfairly pointing fingers at other people for the very sin they themselves desperately cover up. They're now suddenly using empirical data because it suits them, hilarious when they've ignored them for decades. It's honestly a bit satisfying to at least finally see it backfire on them. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the point of your beer analogy? How does that even remotely address the question of the OP? I think you need to take a breath Obsidian and comment when you are more calm. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it was and is very wrong to cover up padophilia. But, the point the report makes is that the popular image of the Catholic priesthood as having a disproportionate number of pedophiles, or as breaking from commonly accepted and recommended practice in the past, isn't really accurate. When you've had certain people claiming that the Catholic Church has a priesthood in which pedophilia is normal, or generally calling the Catholic Church out as being uniquely pedophilic, it is highly relevant to point out that the rates of accused and convicted pedophilic ministers are lower in the Catholic Church than in Protestant churches: perhaps you haven't heard Protestants use 'pedophilia' as a general slur against the Catholic Church?

I can certainly see how you'd read the report as accusing homosexuals of pedophilia, particularly if it's something you've encountered before, but I don't think that's what it's saying. It's saying that the common image (seen in various works of modern fiction) of a Catholic priest abusing a small child isn't actually representative of the vast majority of cases that are counted in the percentage of priests accused of child sexual abuse: mostly they were having sexual contact with adolescent boys, which is a peculiar and interesting contrast to the statistics of child sexual abuse from other groups, and does raise questions about why that is.

But I stand by my initial reaction of "How on Earth can teachers accused of abuse be moved around the system? How on Earth can the rates of sexual abuse in American schools be so high? Why would you worry about any other source of child sexual abuse in that situation?" If you have a good critique of those particular statistics, and some better source, I would be very grateful. Otherwise I think American schoolchildren will be in my prayers for a long time... 86.163.214.39 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read the original academic source, and yes,I understood about how most statistics just lump ephebophilia (more commonly known to the American public as statutory rape) with pedophilia resulting in very misleading results.

Nonetheless, the Catholic League's stance on LGBT issues are well-known and what really is the difference? Donohue defines it as starting between 12 to 13, which is still shockingly young to be shoved aside as "not pedophilia". I still stand by the initial impression that it's undeniably an attempt to blame homosexuals again. See the following: "William Donohue, wrong on abuse" (Michael Tomasky, The Guardian)

So no. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are not what I'd call impartial reliable sources. It might be better to read the sources used in that article directly and derive your own conclusions.

A study mentioned (but not included) in the Catholic League article has also since been released. We actually have an article on it. See John Jay Report. The full PDF can be downloaded here: The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2004). Note that it deals with allegations not falsified or withdrawn since the 1950's concerning victims below 18, but not necessarily proven true either. Online summary can be seen here. Interesting points listed below:

When the multiple surveys for the 143 priests who were the subject of allegations in more than one diocese or religious community are condensed to a single record, the total number of Catholic priests and deacons in the United States who have been accused of sexual abuse of children is 4,392.
If the total number of priests in religious communities who have had allegations made against them is presented as a percentage of all religious priests in ministry, as estimated form the study data, the percentage accused of child sexual abuse is 2.7%.
When allegations were made to the police, they were almost always investigated, and about one in three priests were charged with a crime. Overall, few priests with allegations served criminal sentences; only 3% of all priests with allegations served prison sentences. The priests with many allegations of abuse were not more likely than other priests to be charged and serve prison sentences.
The single age with the greatest proportion of sexual assault victims among all victims reported to law enforcement was age 14.
Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male.

Download the PDF for more, it's certainly more reliable than a compilation by a Catholic group with an agenda anyway, despite being commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But yes of course I agree that the perception of the entire Catholic clergy as pedophiles is unwarranted. Media-skewing and the propensity of the public to go vindictively hysterical and all.

@Googlemeister, my previous post was about the reliability of the article linked, which pertains to the OP's question. As for the beer analogy, while tangential, it should be rather obvious wouldn't it? Though only distantly similar, Prison sexuality might help. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ica, Peru Mayoral Election Candidates[edit]

Good morning, everyone. I am trying track down the names and parties of the candidates in the most recent Mayoral election in Ica, Peru. I think that it was in October 2010, but I am not certain. I believe that Mariano Nacimiento was the successful candidate. I have tried doing some research on Google, but it has uncharacteristically let me down today. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cult symbols[edit]

I'm guessing that the sect mentioned in this anecdote is LDS, and it occurs to me that I wouldn't recognize a LDS symbol if it bit me. (Do two young "Elders" with white shirts and bicycles count as a symbol?) What might be on the ring? —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Mormons do have a history of using rather obscure symbols. This talks about some of those used by the founding members: Anthon transcript. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel Moroni blowing his horn while standing on a sphere is a popular symbol with Mormons too: [4]. Would that be a Moronic symbol ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I looked up the etymology for 'Mormon'... If I may say so, the truth is a bit more mo... er never mind. ;) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ring would probably be a Choose the Right or CTR ring. They were originally given to children as a reminder to live righteously, but are worn by some adult members of the church as well. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems the most plausible. Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]